No Writ for You!

I note with interest that yesterday the Supreme Court of Western Australia published its reasons in The Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v Chin [2012] WASC 7.

This case is somewhat unique in that it dealt with an application by the Principal Registrar to declare Mr Chin, a solicitor, a vexatious litigant.

Over a period of approximately five and a half years Mr Chin commenced twenty-two sets of proceedings in various West Australian courts. These proceedings consisted of:

  • 1 State Administrative Tribunal action;
  • 2 Magistrates Court actions;
  • 1 District Court action;
  • 10 Supreme Court actions (7 of which sought certiorari and mandamus);
  • 4 Court of Appeal actions; and
  • 3 special leave applications to the High Court of Australia.

Mr Chin was also the respondent to disciplinary proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal.

The proceedings in question related broadly to three separate events: firstly, the removal of a caveat lodged by Mr Chin purportedly to protect a solicitors’ lien; secondly, in relation to conditions the Legal Practice Board sought to impose on his practicing certificate; and thirdly in relation to a dispute he had with a Mr Thies, a solicitor to whom Mr Chin owed money.

The application was brought on the basis that the Mr Chin’s actions were vexatious as defined by Section 3 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA).

  vexatious proceedings means proceedings —

(a)              which are an abuse of the process of a court or a tribunal;

(b)              instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose;

(c)              instituted or pursued without reasonable ground; or

(d)             conducted in a manner so as to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve any other wrongful purpose.

The Principal Registrar sought to characterise Mr Chin’s conduct as being covered by paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of the Act.

At the substantive hearing Mr Chin spent his time and focus on defining ‘justice’ rather than directly responding to the contentions advanced by the Principal Registrar.

Murray J was satisfied that the proceedings relied upon may be characterised as an abuse of process, not because of any wrongful motive but because of their general character. His Honour also discussed that it was not necessary to show that the proceedings were intended to be vexatious but rather the general character of the proceedings was to be considered. It was clear from the reasons that Mr Chin’s proceedings amounted to no more than a collateral attack on the judgement of the court in each instance. The sheer volume of relief sought by prerogative writ it testament to that. It was not possible for Mr Chin’s proceedings to be regarded as a proper use of the appellate process.

It was likely Mr Chin’s ‘single minded willingness to litigate and re-litigate the same issues’ that was his undoing.

Orders were made that Mr Chin was not commence proceeding of any kind without the leave of the Court and that leave was only to be granted if the proceedings are not vexatious proceedings and there is a prima facie ground for the proceedings.

Tagged , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: